c 'sing' 'single' It may happen with m$ but it doesn't happen with z/OS and I suspect that it doesn't happen with Linux (anyone here know what RAS Linux has?)
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of John McKown <john.archie.mck...@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 11:37 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: mainframe hacking "success stories"? On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:26 AM Seymour J Metz <sme...@gmu.edu> wrote: > SPARC? I was shocked when I found out that the failure of a sing processor > could bring Solaris down. > What music does a "sing" processor run? {grin}. I am not sure, but doesn't the same thing happen with Intel / Windows (or Linux)? > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > ________________________________________ > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf > of Phil Smith III <li...@akphs.com> > Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 2:25 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: mainframe hacking "success stories"? > > Charles Mills wrote, in part: > > >The mainframe seems to me to have also some "architectural" advantages. It > > >seems to support a denser "clustering." It does not seem to me that there > is > > >anything in the Windows/Linux world that duplicates the advantages of 100 > or > > >so very-closely-coupled (sharing all main storage potentially) CPUs. Sure, > > >you can link a thousand Windows or Linux 8-way servers on a super-fast > net, > > >and it is fine for some things -- incredibly powerful for some of them, > but > > >it seems there are some things the mainframe architecture is inherently > > >better at. > > > > Actually, various RISC servers such as SPARC have servers with hundreds of > processors sharing memory; even Intel machines do. Xeon Phi, for example: > > > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1-JGZXfo-qWk5_L8pUhWZ-gT8ZNUIpk2EWltvIjRVztYIcr80ud7r4wu9yANKu5-EOPXPOE1cH0ThDuC28ZiHwQX2Ytu0InGGKy4F4idP1vEE8K8Sv0vjy5torsAHRQUHebvWFXdi5Lqe5TC5CzzvXvujXmxITcdCpsl8WHPma30lJIT6UeXdna5Ptp0HsoeJDjA-_FTPR1cuHi36KCkrcWIebP3xBLdVjqNDtPiQVJE4nIaA5sKjgKr5aQy0loVxdYC03SxCk-ZTLJ61R_qft9Va4GYmlSHmPHk5l8MF64I8a6DKgbqFKyzTo51JHQi-z0t94sRX1_sm3FvZ1kDLBEP0AdjmHppLXV5tG1nLqPftMjKOX0UoWrsGcunLX0Xe0dhHyJY-9t9-CBVj0FgVSv9B_XkExdM1KA0nRzgniOekEzGanMCzDaRHfsiTMJj2/https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FXeon_Phi > > Up to 72 cores per chip, so up to 144 threads per socket. On an > eight-socket motherboard, that's, um, a lot. > > > > And I'm not sure I buy the value of this on IBM Z anyway: what's the > largest single image you know of in terms of CPUs? Yes, a z14 can have 170, > but nobody runs that way. It's like owning a Bugatti and driving it > downtown: you've got the biggest on the block, but you can't use most of > its capabilities. > > Friend's comment along these lines: > It's a mug's game to obsess about the biggest possible model in a product > line, as most people don't need or buy them (it isn't to Z advantage > anyway). There is a price premium for the "biggest box" and it's less > flexible, and more of a single point of failure or single planned outage. > General practice is to buy boxes that are big enough with room to spare of > course, add more as needed, and run modern applications that don't need a > monolithic single system in the first place. > > > > And Bill Johnson wrote: > > >I'm a huge fan of the mainframe. And security is not the ONLY reason for > staying on it. But is a major reason large companies do. > > > > Assertion without evidence, easy to ignore. I tend to share this bias but > have no compelling evidence that IBM Z in general, or even z/OS > specifically, is inherently more secure than another platform. It may tend > to be, by tradition and history-that is, typical mainframe security posture > and change methodology leads to greater security-but that's not inherent in > the platform. Can you support this claim? > > > > Your article < > https://secure-web.cisco.com/1rMJVojybxJj3F93_rg5B2rTcXI15RsC0ir227kmz7YejMhMztyiWCXO9etAj4AnQP-WKxneSDCBuIk6Dziep-SIrRf7dA04R1tMrYTTKf9X73oYaJmPYlRvqEINSWZbWrn5LAG9iQOtug79v8SAooxTVz4uXMjptTHA0vri6OSg0_UudbVqFSqX2wSb-NR9mkPGJRZ5yzcT-dGN6cw1MGuVYcdm7TjkyUM9Y9seu1LwhtGl--3qSYPwcwZ5dG2tBoQSbllHwP-eNdjuRFRVr42IP9cWKDb_XCKj6k5S9Wmr6dKA8nyPMTqyLYP_2kJ9jAxaNXm-Wfu4GojkFIXD_k-qexEaq0QMdGmtJTCi-05OwKWfoUJsgedgSUZMxLokCEynPdxPUlbILN9TPm3eX8gF1nora269tSyl81sskyUMLMCanWAGGn9sT7eeXfang/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibm.com%2Fsupport%2Fknowledgecenter%2Fzosbasics%2Fcom.ibm.zos.zmainframe%2Fzconc_whousesmf.htm> > , BTW, is (a) from IBM ("never ask the barber if you need a shave") and (b) > proves my point more than yours: > > The mainframe owes much of its popularity and longevity to its inherent > reliability and stability, a result of careful and steady technological > advances that have been made since the introduction of the System/360T in > 1964. No other computer architecture can claim as much continuous, > evolutionary improvement, while maintaining compatibility with previous > releases. > > The first sentence says "This has a long history and is therefore good", > which of course makes no sense. The second says "compatibility [legacy!] is > what makes this good". > > > > It goes on to make laughable assertions: > > Many of today's busiest Web sites store their production databases on a > mainframe host. > > Seriously? "busiest"? Like, say, Google, Instagram, Facebook, Pinterest, > Amazon, Wal-Mart? I don't think so. (Yes, Wal-Mart uses IBM Z but their > backend is Teradata.) IBM really needs to stop saying dumb things like > this, as it just makes the rest of the world snicker. > > > > Or: > > Corporations use mainframes for applications that depend on scalability > and reliability. For example, a banking institution could use a mainframe > to host the database of its customer accounts, for which transactions can > be submitted from any of thousands of ATM locations worldwide. > > Nothing inherent to IBM Z there. Those ATMs aren't running on IBM Z, > either, eh? > > > > Again, apply some critical thinking to the claims. They just don't stand > up. 20 years ago, perhaps. Today, not so much. And this makes me sad, both > for the platform and for IBM, who seem to be denying the reality. > > > > .phsiii > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- This is clearly another case of too many mad scientists, and not enough hunchbacks. Maranatha! <>< John McKown ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
